Defense team will argue for Michael Cohen's credibility and question why other key figures were not called by prosecutors.
Donald Trump's hush money trial in New York is reaching its climax with closing arguments and jury instructions.
Jury will evaluate 34 counts of falsifying business records, all 12 jurors must agree on a decision for it to be accepted.
Prosecutors will argue that Trump's reimbursement for Michael Cohen's payment to Stormy Daniels was designed to interfere with the 2016 election.
Trump has denied having an affair with Stormy Daniels and has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
In the final stretch of the high-profile hush money trial against Donald Trump in New York, closing arguments and jury instructions are set to begin this week. The case, which has already seen over four weeks of testimony from numerous witnesses, will reach its climax as both prosecutors and defense lawyers make their final pitches to the jury before they begin deliberations.
Prosecutors are expected to argue that Trump's reimbursement for Michael Cohen's payment to Stormy Daniels was designed to interfere with the 2016 election. They will likely emphasize the timing of the payment and testimony from both Daniels and Cohen, who admitted stealing tens of thousands of dollars from Trump's company.
The defense team, on the other hand, will argue for the credibility of Michael Cohen and question why other key figures were not called by prosecutors. They may also challenge the idea that Trump knew he was doing something illegal in the alleged cover-up.
Trump has denied having an affair with Stormy Daniels and has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The jury, consisting of 12 individuals, will evaluate 34 counts of falsifying business records. All 12 jurors must agree on a decision for it to be accepted. The verdict could potentially carry a sentence of up to four years in prison for Trump if convicted.
Donald Trump is on trial for felony crimes related to hush money payments during the 2016 election.
Trump faces up to four years in prison if convicted of falsifying business records.
Prosecutors argue that Trump’s reimbursement for Cohen’s payment to Daniels was designed to interfere with the election.
Former publisher of the National Enquirer, David Pecker, testified about his role in protecting Trump’s campaign by buying stories from women who claimed to have had affairs with him.
Cohen admitted stealing tens of thousands of dollars from Trump’s company and once felt that Daniels and her lawyer were extorting Trump.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains several instances of appeals to authority and inflammatory rhetoric. Prosecutors and defense lawyers are described as 'poised to make final pitch to jury' and 'looking to score final points.' The article also states that Trump is the 'first former American president to be charged with felony crimes,' implying the seriousness of the situation without providing any additional context or evidence. Additionally, there are several instances of dichotomous depictions, such as describing Cohen as a 'star prosecution witness' and a 'disbarred lawyer.' However, no explicit logical fallacies were identified in direct statements made by the author.
][Prosecutors] will tell jurors that they have heard enough testimony to convict Trump of all charges while defense attorneys will aim to create doubts about the strength of evidence by targeting the credibility of Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and personal fixer who pleaded guilty to federal charges for his role in the hush money payments and who served as the star prosecution witness in the trial.[/
The first criminal trial for Donald Trump is approaching its final act with closing arguments scheduled for Tuesday.
Jurors will consider a verdict that could make history as it could be the first time a former president and presumptive GOP nominee is convicted of a crime.
Trump’s defense team will argue for the credibility of Michael Cohen, who testified against him, and question why other key figures were not called by prosecutors.
The prosecution will try to convince jurors that Trump orchestrated a scheme to keep unflattering information from voters in an early example of election interference.
Trump has denied having an affair with Stormy Daniels and has pleaded not guilty.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article contains several examples of deceptive practices. First, the author uses emotional manipulation by describing Trump as being in a 'bitter mood' and lashing out at opponents as 'human scum'. Second, there is selective reporting as the author only reports on the credibility of Michael Cohen and does not mention any potential issues with the prosecution's case or witnesses. Third, there is sensationalism with phrases such as 'historic criminal trial', 'dramatic final act', and 'stain his reputation'. Lastly, there are statements that imply facts without linking to peer-reviewed studies or disclosing that they are not peer-reviewed or pre-print. For example, the author states that Trump's defense team argues 'they will argue that the state of New York has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the ex-president ordered and carried out a scheme'. However, there is no citation or link provided to support this claim.
The former president appeared to be in a bitter mood on the eve of his return to the courtroom, lashing out at opponents he called ‘Human Scum’ in a message on social media marking Memorial Day.
The jury in this case must work through a complex legal equation at the heart of the case. To reach a guilty verdict, they must agree that New York state prosecutors have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump falsified business records – which is normally a misdemeanor in the state. Then, to convict Trump of a felony, the jury must determine that this was done to commit another crime – in this case in relation to the 2016 election.
Trump and the rest of the country will be held in suspense to see whether he will become the first ex-president and presumptive GOP nominee to be convicted of a crime after allegedly falsifying financial records to hide a hush money payment to an adult film star in 2016.
Fallacies
(85%)
The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by referring to Trump's opponents as 'Human Scum' and 'defining weeks of his life.' This is a form of ad hominem fallacy where the author attacks the character or personal traits of someone instead of addressing the argument itself.
The Human Scum that is working so hard to destroy our Once Great Country.
Bias
(95%)
The author uses the term 'human scum' to describe Trump's opponents, which is a derogatory and biased term. This language is not necessary for reporting on the trial and serves only to demonize those who are opposing Trump.
Trump wrote in a post on his Truth Social network that was especially jarring on a day dedicated to fallen members of the military.
Trump fulminated against judges who had presided over a massive fraud judgment against him, his firm and his adult sons that was worth nearly half a billion dollars and a defamation suit in which he was ordered to pay the writer E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million.
Now for Merchan!
Former President Donald Trump is charged with 34 felony counts for allegedly falsifying business records related to reimbursement payments he made to his former lawyer Michael Cohen.
,Prosecutors are likely to argue that the payments to Cohen for hush money are the only logical explanation for the transactions, even if one discounts Cohen’s testimony.
,The timing of the payment to Daniels strongly suggests a link to Trump’s campaign as does testimony from Cohen and Daniels.
,There is a legal ambiguity about whether prosecutors have to prove that Trump knew he was doing something illegal in the alleged cover-up.
Accuracy
]Former President Donald Trump is charged with 34 felony counts for allegedly falsifying business records related to reimbursement payments he made to his former lawyer Michael Cohen.[
Prosecutors argue that Trump’s reimbursement for Cohen’s payment to Daniels was designed to interfere with the election.
Trump faces up to four years in prison if convicted of falsifying business records.
Deception
(30%)
The article contains selective reporting as it only reports details that support the author's position. The author does not disclose sources and focuses on the testimony of Michael Cohen, who has a history of lying and pleaded guilty to multiple felony charges. The article also implies facts without linking to peer-reviewed studies or providing evidence, such as 'All that, prosecutors suggested, makes it implausible that Trump signed hundreds of thousands of dollars in checks to Cohen without having some idea what the money was for.'
The author does not disclose sources and relies on the testimony of Michael Cohen, who has a history of lying and pleaded guilty to multiple felony charges.
The article implies facts without providing evidence or linking to peer-reviewed studies, such as 'All that, prosecutors suggested, makes it implausible that Trump signed hundreds of thousands of dollars in checks to Cohen without having some idea what the money was for.'
The author selectively reports details from the trial to support their position.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains several instances of Appeals to Authority fallacy. The author repeatedly refers to Cohen's testimony and the jury's decision as determining Trump's guilt or innocence, without critically evaluating the credibility of Cohen or considering other evidence in the case. Additionally, there are some instances of Inflammatory Rhetoric used by both the author and witnesses during cross-examination. For example, 'That was a lie,' and 'part of it was the 14-year-old.' These statements are emotionally charged and do not contribute to a logical analysis of the evidence.
][author] The jury's decision on whether Trump is guilty may turn on just a handful of questions that are largely detached from the tawdry details that have defined the case. [[/...]]
[Cohen] If believed, Cohen's account is damaging to Trump – but that's a big 'if.'
[author] In a technical sense, prosecutors could have not called Cohen and attempted to prove their case through circumstantial evidence. Much of the evidence was introduced at the trial to bolster Cohen’s account.
[Blanche] That was a lie.
[Cohen] Part of it was the 14-year-old.
[author] Did prosecutors do enough to prove a campaign link and Trump’s intent?
[author] Another knotty question that could be crucial to the outcome of the case is whether prosecutors have to prove that Trump knew he was doing something illegal in the alleged cover-up.
Bias
(90%)
The article does not directly express any bias towards a specific political ideology or party. However, it does present information in a way that may be perceived as unfavorable to former President Donald Trump. The author uses language such as 'if believed' and 'but that's a big
Another knotty question that could be crucial to the outcome of the case is whether prosecutors have to prove that Trump knew he was doing something illegal in the alleged cover-up.
But the jury’s decision on whether Trump is guilty may turn on just a handful of questions that are largely detached from the tawdry details that have defined the case.
Did prosecutors do enough to prove a campaign link and Trump’s intent?
Former President Donald Trump is charged with 34 felony counts for allegedly falsifying business records related to reimbursement payments he made to his former lawyer Michael Cohen.
In addition, some of Cohen’s current story remains dubious, including his account of a 96-second phone call he made to Trump aide Keith Schiller on Oct. 24, 2016.
The hush money trial for Donald Trump's New York case has entered its final stretch, with closing arguments, jury instructions, and potentially a verdict on the horizon.
Prosecutors will have their final opportunity to address the jury in closing arguments expected to last for much of the day.
The defense simply needs to convince at least one juror that prosecutors haven’t proved Trump’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to prevent a conviction.
Judge Juan M. Merchan is expected to spend about an hour instructing the jury on the law governing the case before they begin deliberations.
The jury must evaluate 34 counts of falsifying business records, and all 12 jurors must agree with the decision for it to be accepted.
